sustainability

Article
Linking Importance–Performance Analysis,
Satisfaction, and Loyalty: A Study of Savannah, GA
Jinyang Deng * and Chad D. Pierskalla
Recreation, Parks, & Tourism Resources Program, School of Natural Resources, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26506, USA; chad.pierskalla@mail.wvu.edu
* Correspondence: jinyang.deng@mail.wvu.edu; Tel.: +1-304-293-6818

Received: 13 February 2018; Accepted: 1 March 2018; Published: 5 March 2018

Abstract: Importance–performance analysis (IPA) has been widely used to examine the relationship
between importance, performance, and overall satisfaction in tourism destinations. IPA implicitly
assumes that attribute performance will have little impact on overall satisfaction when stated
importance is low. However, this assumption is rarely tested. This study, for the first time, tested
this assumption by including attributes in each IPA quadrant into a second-order structural equation
model. Results indicate that attributes with lower ratings of importance in the “low priority” and
“potential overkill” quadrants do not contribute to overall satisfaction, regardless of performance,
while the opposite is true for attributes in the “keep up the good work” quadrant with higher ratings
of importance and performance, thus confirming the validity of this assumption. This novel approach
allowed us to take a fresh look at an old debate, and the results suggest stated importance may be
more useful than previously thought. Theoretical, methodological, and managerial implications
are discussed.

Keywords: importance-performance analysis; SEM; second-order factor; urban tourism; green space

1. Introduction
Although it is widely agreed that sustainability conceptually consists of three dimensions—
environmental, social/cultural, and economic—it is argued that “sustainability cannot simply be
a ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ concern, no matter how crucial those aspects of sustainability are” [1]
(p. 1). Instead, more attention should be paid to other aspects of sustainability, including economic
development and social justice. The economic development of a destination largely depends on having
high quality tourism experiences and resulting satisfaction provided by the destination. Economically
satisfied tourists are more likely to pay more, recommend others to the destination, and to visit again [2,3].
Thus, tourist satisfaction plays a crucial role in contributing to the success of a destination [4,5].
A tourism destination is usually composed of various attributes, involving accommodation, food,
activities, shopping, and services, among others. It is the tourist’s perceptions of these attributes in a
destination that interact to form a composite image of it [6], which affects his or her overall satisfaction.
In most cases, it is very unlikely that a tourist will experience all attributes in a destination during
a single trip. Moreover, attributes experienced may not be equally important [7]. For example, if a
person’s main purpose to visit a destination is for snorkeling, then the opportunity to observe various
and colorful marine life would be of high importance to him/her. Accordingly, the snorkeling
experience would have a considerable impact on his/her overall satisfaction at the destination.
In contrast, other attributes (e.g., sightseeing, hiking, etc.) that are not central to the main purpose of
his/her trip may mean less in terms of their importance and performance [8]. Thus, an attribute in
a destination may have different meanings for different tourists, and may not contribute equally to
overall satisfaction. As a result, “determining the attributes of a product or service most important

Sustainability 2018, 10, 704; doi:10.3390/su10030704 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 2 of 17

to overall quality, as perceived by consumers, is central to tourism, marketing and management” [9]
(p. 295). It is also argued that “if visitors state that an attribute is ‘not at all important’ to their visits
then performance of this attribute is expected to be irrelevant to their overall satisfaction” [9] (p. 296).
Although attribute importance and performance, attribute-level satisfaction, and overall satisfaction
have been extensively examined in the literature using Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA), few,
if any, have attempted to link IPA with overall satisfaction in a structural equation model (SEM)
or regression analysis—the two most commonly used statistical methods in the field of tourism
satisfaction studies—to test relationships between attributes in each IPA quadrant with overall
satisfaction. It should be noted that IPA implies that “attribute performance will have little influence
on overall satisfaction when self-stated importance is low” [9] (p. 296). However, “this assumption
is rarely tested in the literature and yet without confirmation of the validity of this assumption
management should interpret conclusions based on IPA with caution” [9] (p. 296). To fill this research
gap, this study aims to use the attributes in each IPA quadrant as observed variables in SEM to test
the assumption that “overall satisfaction will be influenced less by attribute performance when the
self-stated importance of the attribute is low” [9] (p. 303).
While SEM has been widely used in the fields of hospitality and tourism, advanced SEM
techniques, such as higher-order modeling, remain scant [10]. It is argued that higher-order modeling
(e.g., a second-order construct) has advantage over first-order modeling if several first-order constructs
can be meaningfully conceptualized at a higher-order of abstraction, in that a higher-order modeling
can increase the model fit and “recognize the contribution and retain the idiosyncratic nature of each
first-order construct” [10] (p. 635). For this reason, second-order modelling was used for this study.
We begin with a review of literature on IPA, the relationships between importance, performance,
and satisfaction, and the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. This review lays the foundation
for the development of five hypotheses. We then describe the methods used and present and discuss
findings from the data analysis. Finally, implications for theory and practice are discussed.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Importance–Performance Analysis

The IPA framework was introduced in marketing research to understand customers’ satisfaction
by matching their perceptions toward attribute importance and performance [11]. Importance
and performance ratings are displayed on a two-dimensional grid, and fall into one of four
quadrants—“keep up the good work”, “potential overkill”, “low priority” and “concentrate here”
(Figure 1). Another classification approach is to insert an upward 45◦ diagonal line (i.e., iso-rating or
iso-priority line) to identify management priorities. Items on the line imply that performance equals
importance, while items above the line indicate that performance fails to meet importance and thus
requires improvement [12,13].
The use of the IPA has suffered criticism. One controversial issue is where the intersecting lines
or crosshairs should be positioned [14–16]. The two commonly used approaches are scale-centered
and data-centered, whereas the scale middle is used [17–20] for the former, and the average of all
importance or performance ratings is used [21–27] for the latter. Relatively, “the majority of researchers
use the mean values of actual importance and performance ratings when specifying the thresholds” [15]
(p. 45). This study followed this approach with a slight modification [28], wherein the mean of the
mean differences (0, 0), instead of the original ratings, was used as the crosshairs. If Excel or SPSS is
used, all points will be automatically and effectively positioned in the IPA grid, with the crosshairs
being positioned as (0, 0) and the iso-rating line positioned diagonally through the origin (0, 0) [28].
Data-centered methods have been used in a number of studies measuring satisfaction in the field of
tourism studies [29–33].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 3 of 17
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Importance–Performance grid.
Importance–Performance grid.

Another controversial issue is the use of stated or absolute importance directly obtained from
Another controversial issue is the use of stated or absolute importance directly obtained from
tourists vs. derived importance indirectly obtained from statistical methods (i.e., multiple regression
tourists vs. derived importance indirectly obtained from statistical methods (i.e., multiple regression
analysis [9,34]; partial correlation analysis [22,23]; and simple regression analysis [35–37]). Although
analysis [9,34]; partial correlation analysis [22,23]; and simple regression analysis [35–37]). Although
the use of the derived importance has advantages over the stated importance (i.e., reduced social
the use of the derived importance has advantages over the stated importance (i.e., reduced social
desirability bias and fatigue bias [37,38]), this approach is not without limitations. Apart from the
desirability bias and fatigue bias [37,38]), this approach is not without limitations. Apart from the
possible multicollinearity issue among attributes [39], some multiple regression analyses or partial
possible multicollinearity issue among attributes [39], some multiple regression analyses or partial
correlation analyses may generate negative coefficients which “violates the positive relationship
correlation analyses may generate negative coefficients which “violates the positive relationship
between service attributes and overall satisfaction in practice” [37] (p. 456). Although this indirect
between service attributes and overall satisfaction in practice” [37] (p. 456). Although this indirect
approach has gained popularity among some researchers, it is found that the stated importance is
approach has gained popularity among some researchers, it is found that the stated importance is
more robust than the derived importance in predicting overall satisfaction [9,40] and brand choice
more robust than the derived importance in predicting overall satisfaction [9,40] and brand choice [41].
[41]. Thus, for the purpose of this study, stated importance was used.
Thus, for the purpose of this study, stated importance was used.
Although there are some methodological limitations with the IPA in terms of its validity and
Although there are some methodological limitations with the IPA in terms of its validity and
reliability, the method has been widely used to measure product and service quality because of its
reliability, the method has been widely used to measure product and service quality because of its
simplicity, intuitiveness, and effectiveness [42]. While the IPA was initially designed as a market
simplicity, intuitiveness, and effectiveness [42]. While the IPA was initially designed as a market
technique to elucidate management strategies of a business, its application has extended to many
technique to elucidate management strategies of a business, its application has extended to many
areas of services industries, including hospitality and tourism [15], wherein tourists’ satisfaction at
areas of services industries, including hospitality and tourism [15], wherein tourists’ satisfaction at the
the attribute level is examined along with attribute importance and performance.
attribute level is examined along with attribute importance and performance.
2.2. Importance,
2.2. Importance, Performance, and Satisfaction
Performance, and Satisfaction
Satisfaction is
Satisfaction is defined
defined as
as “a
“a judgement
judgement thatthat aa product
product or or service
service feature,
feature, or
or the
the product
product or or service
service
itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment” [43] (p.
itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment” [43] (p. 13). Satisfaction has13). Satisfaction has
been viewed as an outcome of a mental process where the perceived
been viewed as an outcome of a mental process where the perceived performance of a product performance of a product or
service
or serviceis compared
is compared withwith
various standards
various (e.g.,(e.g.,
standards expectations). How satisfied
expectations). an individual
How satisfied is largely
an individual is
largely depends on whether his/her perceived performance exceeds or equals expectations,not.
depends on whether his/her perceived performance exceeds or equals expectations, or An
or not.
individual
An individual feels satisfied
feels if positive
satisfied if positive disconfirmation
disconfirmation(i.e.,
(i.e.,performance
performanceexceeds
exceedsexpectations)
expectations) occurs,
occurs,
while negative disconfirmation (i.e., performance fails to meet expectations) results
while negative disconfirmation (i.e., performance fails to meet expectations) results in dissatisfaction.in dissatisfaction.
There are two methods for measuring disconfirmation: inferred measure and direct measure [44]. In
an inferred measure, “the score for the measured standard of comparison is subtracted from the score
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 4 of 17

There are two methods for measuring disconfirmation: inferred measure and direct measure [44]. In an
inferred measure, “the score for the measured standard of comparison is subtracted from the score
for perceptions” while a direct measure directly asks the consumer to indicate on a Likert scale about
his/her expectations being “better than expected” or “worse than expected” [44] (p. 121).
In most cases, expectations are measured before the purchase/consumption of a product/service,
while service quality and satisfaction are measured on site [44]. However, it is not realistic to obtain
people’s expectations before leaving for a destination, nor it is accurate to assess their expectations on
site by asking them to recall what they expected before leaving [31]. Alternatively, much of the research
has chosen to measure attribute importance and performance and then examine the extent to which
these two measures correlate with the attribute-level satisfaction or overall satisfaction [4,9,45,46].
However, some have used perceived performance or quality of service as a priori to measure
satisfaction [9,31], although these constructs are conceptually different [45].
It is suggested that importance and expectations are potential antecedents to performance [11].
In other words, attribute performance could be directly influenced by attribute importance. Some
argue that importance is positively related to performance [14]. Previous studies have found that both
importance and performance have significant effects on overall satisfaction. For example, it is found
that both importance and performance significantly and directly contribute to satisfaction; the impact
of performance, however, is more significant than importance [4]. Moreover, importance indirectly
impacts satisfaction via its impact on performance. A study [47] measured service quality in several
types of tourism businesses, finding that the mean perception of performance scores is a good or
better evaluation of perceived service quality than the computed quality score of perceptions minus
expectations. Similar findings have also been reported in several other studies [48,49]. Performance
was also found to be a better predictor of the service quality than importance and other predictors [45]
(e.g., expectations, importance times expectations, importance minus performance, importance
times performance, performance minus expectations, and importance times the difference between
performance and expectations), although these predictors are also significantly and positively related
to the overall measure of quality.
Contrary to these findings on performance being more significant than importance in predicting
overall satisfaction, a study [50] in Australia involving visits to various aspects of aboriginal culture
suggested that attribute importance determined satisfaction ratings. Another study [51] tested the
relationship between product categories, product attributes, and satisfaction for shopping, finding that
product attribute importance and satisfaction were significantly correlated for Japanese tourists visiting
Hawaii. It is argued that importance and performance are interdependent and cannot be separately
treated when overall satisfaction is examined, based on the rationale that “overall satisfaction will be
influenced less by attribute performance when the self-stated importance of the attribute is low” [9]
(p. 303). In other words, the performance of an attribute, regardless of its quality, may not affect a
tourist’s overall satisfaction if the tourist did not experience or did not care too much about the attribute,
while the opposite would be true for attributes with high levels of importance and performance. This
assumption leads to the following four hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Attributes in the “keep up the good work” quadrant will significantly and positively
contribute to overall satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Attributes in the “concentrate here” quadrant will significantly and negatively predict
overall satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Attributes in the “low priority” quadrant will not contribute to overall satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Attributes in the “potential overkill” quadrant will not contribute to overall satisfaction.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 5 of 17

2.3. Satisfaction and Loyalty

Loyalty, in the marketing literature, has been defined in three dimensions: attitudinal,
behavioral intention, and actual behavior [52]. Attitudinal loyalty refers to expressed liking for
a destination/establishment or festival/event without overt intentions, while behavioral intention
is defined by intention to revisit, recommend, and say positive things about a person’s experience.
In addition, willingness to pay more and likelihood to switch are also included in some studies
to measure behavioral intention [53,54]. Finally, behavior loyalty refers to the actual purchase of a
product/service (e.g., proportion of nights/visitors/dollars spent at a particular brand or property,
frequency of visits, and actual patronization of a destination) [52].
Satisfaction is considered a necessary step towards the formation of loyalty [55]. The relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty has been measured in numerous studies on festivals [56], hospitality [53],
and tourism [57]. A strong positive relationship between satisfaction and loyalty was found in a
meta-analysis of festival literature [56]. This positive relationship was also found in another meta-analysis
of hospitality literature [52] and in most other individual studies on tourism destinations [58]. Thus,
the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Overall satisfaction will significantly and positively predict loyalty.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Area

The city of Savannah, Georgia, USA (our study location), is located at 32◦ 3’3”N, 81◦ 6’14”W. With
a total area of 202.3 km2 , it is the largest city in Chatham County and the fourth largest city in Georgia.
In 2015, it had an estimated population of 145,674 [59].
Savannah (founded in 1733) is internationally known as the first planned city in the US. The size
of the downtown area is among the largest National Historic Landmark Districts in the country and
is abundant in cultural and historical attractions. The downtown area has unique architecture and
historic buildings in addition to its nature-based attractions, such as coastal islands, botanical gardens,
and city parks. It is famous for its 22 nature-dominated and parklike public squares that contain woods
and gardens. Savannah’s city plan is organized around the squares which are the main components of
the city’s urban forests.
The unique and elegant architecture, fountains, ornate ironwork, and green squares have been
a major interest for over 50 million visitors in the last 10 years [60]. In 2014, more than 13.4 million
people visited the city. Of those visitors, 7.6 million were overnight tourists and 5.8 million were
day-trippers [61]. Savannah offers a variety of tourism attractions and visitors’ activities (e.g., city
trolley and carriage tours around the public squares and architecture, boating along the Savannah
River, dinning in restaurants, shopping antique and souvenir stores, attending guided night walks,
and attending festivals and special events).

3.2. Data Collection

The study used a convenient sample of visitors walking in the Rousakis Plaza/River Street,
a popular attraction in the city. A convenience sampling method is used to collect a nonprobability
sample and has been widely used by “almost all of the major public opinion polling groups, political
polling groups, and market research organization” [62] (p. 49). Study participants (aged 18 years
or older) were asked to complete an on-site questionnaire consisting of visitors’ trip characteristics,
perceptions of tourism attributes (i.e., importance, performance, and satisfaction), overall satisfaction,
and loyalty. Savannah’s Park and Tree Department, the Savannah Visitor Information Center, and
other project collaborators helped to develop the study instrument. Sampling took place from July
2008 to August 2009.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 6 of 17

3.3. Measurement
Visitors’ perceptions of attribute importance, performance, and satisfaction were measured by
23 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = the least important, 7 = the most important for importance;
1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree for performance; and 1 = extremely dissatisfied, 7 = extremely
satisfied for attribute-level satisfaction and overall satisfaction). Likewise, destination loyalty
(i.e., behavioral intention) was also measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree). Visitors were also asked to provide information on their socio-demographics
(i.e., gender, age, education, occupation, and residency) and trip characteristics (i.e., lengths of stay,
frequency of visits, group size, and expenditures). Finally, they were asked to provide comments in an
open-ended question about the study and tourism in the city.

3.4. Data Analysis

The expectation–maximization algorithm [63] was used to replace missing data before conducting
data analyses. A total of 36 questionnaires were excluded from the 640 returned questionnaires due to
systematic incomplete responses or responses with skeptical patterns. This reduced the sample size to
604 for further analysis. After the screening, the missing rate was less than 5% for all variables, which
is inconsequential [64].
In addition, data skewness and kurtosis for observed variables were also tested. If absolute
values of univariate skewness and univariate kurtosis for a sample are within 2 and 3, respectively,
the data can be considered not to “extremely” deviate from the normal distribution [65]. The normality
assessment indicated that the absolute values of all endogenous variables met the criteria, except for
the four loyalty items, whose skewness values met the criteria of less than 2, but kurtosis values were
greater than 3, ranging from 3.6 to 5.3, resulting in a moderate violation of normality. To correct this
non-normality issue, the maximum likelihood bootstrapping technique with 10,000 bootstraps was
used [66].
Data analyses consisted of four steps. First, gap analysis was conducted using pairwise t-tests to
examine the extent to which perceptions of importance and performance matched one another. Second,
IPA was conducted with attributes being graphically displayed on the I-P grids. Third, factor analysis
was also conducted for the five items measuring loyalty, and for the attributes in each quadrant. Finally,
SEM was analyzed to test the five proposed hypotheses.
For the factor analysis, principal components analysis was conducted to obtain latent variables.
The varimax rotation and eigenvalues of 1.00 or more were used to identify potential factors.
The appropriateness of the data for factory analysis was tested using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A cut-off point of 0.45 was used to
select items for a factor [67]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to estimate the reliability of
factors. Although a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 [68] is commonly accepted for measuring a scale’s
reliability, it is also acceptable to have a lower value of 0.60 in exploratory studies and in research in
the social sciences and psychology [69,70].
In a SEM analysis, if p > 0.05, the model is acceptable. However, a p-value is usually less than 0.05
due to the χ2 value being sensitive to sample size as well as model complexity. This would lead to a
well-fitting model being rejected if judged by this criterion [71]. Alternatively, a ratio of χ2 /df as high
as 5 was used to assess a model fit [72].
Several other indices, such as RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), CFI
(Comparative Fit Index), IFI (Incremental Fit Index), NFI (Normed-Fit Index), RFI (Relative Fit Index),
and TLI (the Tucker–Lewis Index) have also been used in the literature to judge a model fit. A RMSEA
value ranging from 0.05 to 0.10 indicates a fair fit [73], while 0.90 is commonly used as the cut-off
criterion for CFI, IFI, NFI, RFI, and TLI. However, 0.95 has also been recommended as the threshold
for a better fit [74].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 7 of 17

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

In total, 1219 visitors were approached, with 640 agreeing to fill the questionnaire, resulting in
a response rate of 52.5%. The majority of respondents were females (57.0%), aged 26 to 54 (47.3%),
well educated, and affluent. Most of respondents (66.2%) had visited the city at least once prior to the
current trip. In addition, the average group size was 3.22 persons and the length of stay was 2.77 days.

4.2. Gap Analysis

Table 1 presents the paired-sample t-tests for mean differences between performance and
importance. Attribute satisfaction is also presented in the table. As shown, the mean values for
importance, performance, and attribute satisfaction were 5.73, 5.60, and 5.64, respectively. The mean
for overall satisfaction was 6.04. “Personal safety and security” had the highest rating on importance
(M = 6.31), while the item “attractive architecture/buildings” was rated highest on performance
(M = 6.28) and satisfaction (M = 6.27). In contrast, “good night-life/entertainment” was rated lowest
on importance (M = 4.83), and “parking availability” was rated lowest on both performance (M = 4.14)
and satisfaction (M = 4.25).

Table 1. Paired-sample t-tests for mean differences between performance and importance.

Mean
Item Gap (P − I) t p
P I S
1. Beauty of public squares 6.09 5.98 6.13 0.11 2.75 0.006
2. Beauty of tree-lined streets/boulevards 6.11 6.01 6.18 0.11 2.63 0.009
3. Beauty of trees in neighborhoods 6.00 5.79 6.10 0.21 4.61 0.000
4. Beauty of gardens and parks 6.13 6.11 6.16 0.02 0.39 0.699
5. Wide selection of restaurants/bars 5.80 5.43 5.82 0.37 5.65 0.000
6. Street cleanliness 5.38 6.02 5.39 −0.64 −11.24 0.000
7. Peaceful/restful atmosphere 5.65 5.95 5.82 −0.30 −5.58 0.000
8. Personal safety and security 5.62 6.31 5.59 −0.70 −12.48 0.000
9. Friendliness of local people 5.83 5.91 5.80 −0.09 −1.57 0.116
10. Wide variety of shops 5.67 5.26 5.63 0.41 6.89 0.000
11. Wide choice of accommodation 5.61 5.34 5.66 0.27 5.16 0.000
12. Interesting cultural attractions 5.82 5.71 5.80 0.11 2.30 0.022
13. Interesting historical attractions 6.25 6.10 6.20 0.15 3.93 0.000
14. Attractive architecture/buildings 6.28 6.02 6.27 0.26 5.74 0.000
15. Reasonable price for food/accommodation 5.19 5.65 5.19 −0.47 −7.96 0.000
16. Reasonable price for attractions/activities 5.23 5.62 5.21 −0.39 −6.79 0.000
17. Helpfulness of information/welcome centers 5.65 5.63 5.56 0.01 0.14 0.890
18. Parking availability 4.14 5.47 4.25 −1.36 −15.04 0.000
19. Quality of food 5.36 5.89 5.61 −0.53 −10.79 0.000
20. Wide variety of cuisine 5.53 5.47 5.55 0.05 1.03 0.305
21. Service in restaurants 5.36 5.76 5.54 −0.42 −8.11 0.000
22. Reasonable price of meals 4.94 5.60 5.05 −0.66 −11.23 0.000
23. Good night-life/entertainment 5.24 4.83 5.22 0.28 4.68 0.000
5.64
Average 5.60 5.73
6.04 *
Note: P = performance, I = importance, S = attribute satisfaction. * The mean for overall satisfaction.

t-Tests showed that 19 out of 23 pairs were significantly different, with nine items measuring
safety, price, and food/service being significantly lower in performance than in importance.
However, 10 items, measuring green space, variety of restaurants, shops, and accommodation, and
entertainment/nightlife had a significantly higher performance than importance. A correlation analysis
indicated that performance, importance, and attribute satisfaction are highly correlated with one
another. It is worth noting that attribute performance and attribute satisfaction are highly correlated,
with the coefficient being 0.985, which is close to 1.0, suggesting a perfect match between attribute
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 8 of 17

performance and attribute satisfaction (Figure 2). As the figure shows, the two lines representing
attribute performance
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FORand attribute
PEER REVIEW satisfaction are aligned very well. 8 of 17

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Graphs
Graphs of
of importance,
importance, performance,
performance, satisfaction,
satisfaction, and the gap.
and the gap.

4.3. Importance–Performance Analysis

4.3. Importance–Performance Analysis
As mentioned in the methods section, neither the midpoint of the scale (i.e., 4.0 out of 7.0), nor
As mentioned in the methods section, neither the midpoint of the scale (i.e., 4.0 out of 7.0), nor
the mean values of the raw scores, were used to determine the position of the crosshairs in the I-P
the mean values of the raw scores, were used to determine the position of the crosshairs in the I-P
grid. Instead, the mean (which is 0) of the mean differences between the raw scores for importance
grid. Instead, the mean (which is 0) of the mean differences between the raw scores for importance or
or performance and associated means was used to determine the position of the crosshairs. The
performance and associated means was used to determine the position of the crosshairs. The results
results are displayed in Figure 3. If judged by the iso-rating line, all 14 items below the diagonal line
are displayed in Figure 3. If judged by the iso-rating line, all 14 items below the diagonal line perform
perform well (i.e., items 1–4 on green space, items 5, 10 and 11 on variety of products, item 9 on
well (i.e., items 1–4 on green space, items 5, 10 and 11 on variety of products, item 9 on friendliness of
friendliness of local people, items 12–14 on cultural and heritage resources, item 17 on
local people, items 12–14 on cultural and heritage resources, item 17 on information/welcome centers,
information/welcome centers, and item 23 on good night-life/entertainment), while the nine items
and item 23 on good night-life/entertainment), while the nine items above the line require special
above the line require special attention to improve (i.e., item 6 on street cleanliness, items 7 and 8 on
attention to improve (i.e., item 6 on street cleanliness, items 7 and 8 on safety, items 15, 16, and 22 on
safety, items 15, 16, and 22 on price, item 18 on parking, and items 19 and 21 on food and restaurant
price, item 18 on parking, and items 19 and 21 on food and restaurant service). Interestingly, these nine
service). Interestingly, these nine items are identical to the nine items whose performance is perceived
items are identical to the nine items whose performance is perceived significantly lower than their
significantly lower than their importance in the gap analysis.
importance in the gap analysis.
Alternatively, if judged by the four quadrants, the four green space items (i.e., items 1–4), three
Alternatively, if judged by the four quadrants, the four green space items (i.e., items 1–4), three
safety items (i.e., items 7–9) and two heritage items (i.e., items 13 and 14) are located in the “keep up
safety items (i.e., items 7–9) and two heritage items (i.e., items 13 and 14) are located in the “keep up
the good work” quadrant. Item 6 “street cleanliness” and two other items on food and restaurant
the good work” quadrant. Item 6 “street cleanliness” and two other items on food and restaurant
service (i.e., items 19 and 21) are in the “concentrate here” quadrant. Three items, measuring the price
service (i.e., items 19 and 21) are in the “concentrate here” quadrant. Three items, measuring the
of food/accommodation, attractions, and meals (i.e., items 15, 16 and 22), along with another three
price of food/accommodation, attractions, and meals (i.e., items 15, 16 and 22), along with another
items, measuring parking (item 18), variety of cuisine (item 20), and nightlife/entertainment (item 23)
three items, measuring parking (item 18), variety of cuisine (item 20), and nightlife/entertainment
are positioned in the “low priority” grid. Finally, five items are in the “potential overkill” area,
(item 23) are positioned in the “low priority” grid. Finally, five items are in the “potential overkill” area,
including three items involving the variety of products (i.e., items 5, 10 and 11), one item regarding
including three items involving the variety of products (i.e., items 5, 10 and 11), one item regarding
cultural attractions (item 12), and one regarding information/welcome centers (item 17).
cultural attractions (item 12), and one regarding information/welcome centers (item 17).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 9 of 17
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

Figure
Figure 3. Importance–performance
3. Importance–performance analysisofofdestination
analysis destinationattributes
attributes in Savannah,
Savannah,GA.
GA.

4.4. 4.4. Factor

Factor Analysis
Analysis
A factor analysis was conducted for the five items measuring loyalty (KMO = 0.89, p < 0.001 for
A factor analysis was conducted for the five items measuring loyalty (KMO = 0.89, p < 0.001 for
Bartlett’s test of sphericity), generating one factor (85.69% of total variance was explained, Cronbach’s
Bartlett’s test of sphericity), generating one factor (85.69% of total variance was explained, Cronbach’s
α = 0.95). (Table 2). These five items were used as observed variables to measure loyalty in the SEM
α = 0.95). (Table 2). These five items were used as observed variables to measure loyalty in the
analysis.
SEM analysis.
Table 2. Summary results of the factor analysis of items measuring loyalty.
Table 2. Summary results of the factor analysis of items measuring loyalty.
Unrotated Factor
Code Factor (Proportion): Scale Name and Items M SD
1
Unrotated Factor
Code Factor
Factor (Proportion): Scale Name and Items
1: Loyalty M
6.33 SD
0.93
1
L1 Savannah is a place worthy of visiting again 6.36 1.00 0.931
L2 Factor
I will1: Loyalty
revisit the city for pleasure trips 6.33
6.18 0.93
1.20 0.863
L1 L3 Savannah is a placeSavannah
I will recommend worthy oftovisiting again
family or friends 6.36
6.37 1.00
0.96 0.931
0.952
L2 L4 I will revisit the city for pleasure trips
I will say positive things to other people 6.18
6.39 1.20
0.95 0.863
0.933
L3 L5 I will recommend Savannah to family
I will recommend to those who want advice or friends 6.37
6.36 0.96
0.94 0.952
0.947
L4 I will say positive things to other people
Eigenvalues 6.39 0.95 0.933
4.28
L5 I will
% ofrecommend
variance to those who want advice 6.36 0.94 0.947
85.69
Eigenvalues
Cumulative % 4.28
85.69
%Standardized
of variance Cronbach’s a 85.69
0.95
Cumulative % 85.69
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) = 0.89, p < 0.001. Only one component was extracted and rotated methods
Standardized Cronbach’s a 0.95
cannot be applied.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) = 0.89, p < 0.001. Only one component was extracted and rotated methods cannot
be applied.
A factor analysis was also conducted to confirm that items in each quadrant measure the same
construct. The results show that the “keep up the good work” quadrant consists of three factors—
A factor
“green analysis
space”, was and
“safety”, also“heritage”—each
conducted to confirm that34.25%,
explaining items 14.29%,
in each and
quadrant
13.63%measure the
of the total
same construct. The results show that the “keep up the good work” quadrant consists of three
variance, respectively, with a cumulative variance of 62.18% (Table 3). In addition, two factors are
factors—“green space”, “safety”, and “heritage”—each explaining 34.25%, 14.29%, and 13.63% of the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 10 of 17

total variance, respectively, with a cumulative variance of 62.18% (Table 3). In addition, two factors
are found in the “low priority” area (Table 4), while the “concentrate here” quadrant and “potential
overkill” quadrants each have one factor (Tables 5 and 6).

Table 3. Summary results of the factor analysis of items in the “keep up the good work” quadrant.

Rotated (varimax) Factors

Code Factor (Proportion): Scale Name and Items M SD
1 2 3
Factor 1: Green space 1.15 0.84
IP1 Beauty of public squares 0.11 1.02 0.822 0.047 0.018
IP2 Beauty of tree-lined streets/boulevards 0.10 0.98 0.866 0.107 0.031
IP3 Beauty of trees in neighborhoods 0.20 1.11 0.781 0.151 0.061
IP4 Beauty of gardens and parks 0.01 0.94 0.770 0.171 0.173
Factor 2: Safety −0.49 1.13
IP7 Peaceful/restful atmosphere −0.33 1.32 0.075 0.769 0.057
IP8 Personal safety and security −0.71 1.36 0.089 0.822 −0.064
Factor 3: Heritage 0.20 0.83
IP13 Interesting historical attractions 0.15 0.96 0.013 0.067 0.828
IP14 Attractive architecture/buildings 0.26 1.05 0.130 0.021 0.784
Eigenvalues 3.08 1.29 1.23
% of variance 34.25 14.29 13.63
Cumulative % 48.55 62.18
Standardized Cronbach’s a 0.84 0.53 0.51
KMO = 0.80, p < 0.001. Item 9 was removed from factor 2 due to its loading on factors lower than 0.45, and because
its item–total correlation is less than 0.30.

Table 4. Summary results of the factor analysis of items in the “low priority” quadrant.

Rotated (Varimax) Factors

Code Factor (Proportion): Scale Name and Items M SD
Factor 1 Factor 2
Factor 1: Price −0.72 1.23
IP15 Reasonable price for food/accommodation −0.47 1.43 0.867 −0.199
IP16 Reasonable price for attractions/activities −0.39 1.39 0.826 −0.188
IP18 Parking availability −1.35 2.17 0.542 −0.074
IP22 Reasonable price of meals −0.66 1.44 0.843 0.009
Factor 2: Night-life 0.18 1.08
IP20 Wide variety of cuisine 0.05 1.26 0.236 0.791
IP23 Good night-life/entertainment 0.30 1.35 0.216 0.798
Eigenvalues 2.54 1.33
% of variance 42.35 22.40
Cumulative % 64.75
Standardized Cronbach’s a 0.75 0.54
KMO = 0.70, p < 0.001.

Table 5. Summary results of the factor analysis of items in the “concentrate here” quadrant.

Unrotated Factor
Code Factor (Proportion): Scale Name and Items M SD
1
Factor 1: −0.53 0.97
IP6 Street cleanliness −0.66 1.41 0.611
IP19 Quality of food −0.52 1.19 0.818
IP21 Service in restaurants −0.41 1.26 0.816
Eigenvalues 1.71
% of variance 56.94
Cumulative % 56.94
Standardized Cronbach’s a 0.60
KMO = 0.60, p < 0.001. Only one component was extracted and rotated methods cannot be applied.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 11 of 17

Table 6. Summary results of the factor analysis of items in the “potential overkill” quadrant.

Unrotated Factor
Code Factor (Proportion): Scale Name and Items M SD
1
Factor 1: Variety 0.27 0.93
IP5 Wide selection of restaurants/bars 0.34 1.62 0.477
IP10 Wide variety of shops 0.40 1.47 0.766
IP11 Wide choice of accommodation 026 1.26 0.777
IP12 Interesting cultural attractions 0.09 1.17 0.608
Eigenvalues 1.98
% of variance 39.71
Cumulative % 39.71
Standardized Cronbach’s a 0.59
KMO = 0.70, p < 0.001. Item 17 was removed due to its loading on factors lower than 0.45, and because its item–total
correlation was less than 0.30. Only one component was extracted and rotated methods cannot be applied.

The existence of subscales in the two quadrants warrants a second-order factor being included
in the SEM. However, factor two, which consists of two attributes (i.e., attributes 20 on cuisine and
23 on night life) in the “low priority” quadrant, was excluded from the SEM for two reasons. First,
the two attributes are not conceptually linked. Second, inclusion of the factor in the model resulted in
a poorer fit.

4.5. Importance–Performance Quadrants and Structural Equation Modeling

In order to test H1-H5 with regard to relationships between items in each IPA quadrant with
overall satisfaction, covariance arrows were initially added to all exogenous variables. This resulted in
a poor model fit. A good model fit was achieved when only the covariance links between “keep up the
good work” and “concentrate here”, and between “low priority” and “potential overkill” were kept in
the model (Figure 4).2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 12 of 17

Figure 4. TheFigure 4. Therelationships

structural structural relationships
betweenbetween
items initems
eachinimportance–performance
each importance–performance analysis (IPA)
analysis (IPA) quadrant, overall satisfaction, and loyalty. Notes: (1) please refer to Tables
quadrant, overall
2–6 for the observed variables measuring importance and performance and (2) to increasethe observed
satisfaction, and loyalty. Notes: (1) please refer to Tables 2–6 for
variables measuring
the modelimportance and
fit, not all items performance
were and (2) to increase the model fit, not all items were
used in the model.
used in the model.
5. Discussion
At least four findings from this study are worthy of discussion. First, the results from the IPA
reveal that Savannah as a tourism destination performs well, with the majority of attributes (i.e., 14
out of 23) being below the iso-rating line, which means that performance exceeds importance. In
addition, there were nine attributes in the “keep up the good work” quadrant as opposed to three in
the “concentrate here” area, suggesting the city is highly attractive due to its green space, unique
heritage, and safety. Thus, to remain competitive in the market, the city needs to maintain or enhance
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 12 of 17

Although the p-value for the model is less than 0.05, other indices (e.g., χ2 /df = 3.36, RMSEA = 0.063,
CFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.91, RFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.92) indicate a good model fit. This shows that the
first-order constructs—“green space”, “safety”, and “heritage”—are all significantly and positively
related to the second-order construct of “keep up the good work”, which significantly and positively
correlates with overall satisfaction (r = 0.43, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.19). Thus, H1 is supported.
Interestingly, none of other three constructs—“concentrate here”, “low priority”, and “potential
overkill”—were significantly related to overall satisfaction. Specifically, “concentrate here” was
negatively related to overall satisfaction (r = −0.05, p > 0.05), albeit not at the significant level of 0.05.
This leads to the partial support of H2. The regression weights for “low priority” and “potential
overkill” were 0.01 and 0.00, respectively, which indicates that items in these two quadrants have
little to zero impact on overall satisfaction. Hence, H3 and H4 are fully supported. Finally, overall
satisfaction significantly and positively contributes to loyalty (r = 0.57, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.33), leading to
the support of H5.

5. Discussion
At least four findings from this study are worthy of discussion. First, the results from the IPA
reveal that Savannah as a tourism destination performs well, with the majority of attributes (i.e., 14 out
of 23) being below the iso-rating line, which means that performance exceeds importance. In addition,
there were nine attributes in the “keep up the good work” quadrant as opposed to three in the
“concentrate here” area, suggesting the city is highly attractive due to its green space, unique heritage,
and safety. Thus, to remain competitive in the market, the city needs to maintain or enhance the
quality of these important attributes, particularly the unique architectural buildings and green space
featured by the park-like public squares. It should be noted that architectural buildings and green
space attributes are still under the “keep up the good work” quadrant, even when judged by the
iso-rating line. This finding not only endorses previous studies on urban forests in cities (i.e., historical
attractions/architectural buildings and green space were ranked the top two most important attributes
for the city in a previous study [75]; pubic squares were ranked the highest in scenic beauty [76]) but
reflects the real appeal of tourism attractions in the city. For instance, unique architecture, ornate
ironwork, fountains and green squares were among the top motives for people to visit the city [60].
This, in turn, corroborates the use of stated importance for the IPA. A previous study [26] also reported
that safety and natural merits (e.g., nice weather, outstanding scenery, etc.) are among the most
important attributes perceived by visitors to Guam.
It should be noted that results using the iso-rating line as a classification threshold are consistent
with those using a gap analysis, where t-tests have shown that performance is perceived to be
significantly lower than importance. This substantiates another previous study [19] which argued that
the data-centered method can provide closer agreement with the results of gap analysis. It also endorses
a study [77] on stakeholders’ perceptions of challenges facing rural communities in the Appalachian
region, where attributes above the iso-rating line (i.e., performance < importance) represented most of
those identified by t-tests.
Second, the mean value of performance (M = 5.60) is closest to that of the attribute-level satisfaction
(M = 5.64), and the overall satisfaction rating of 6.04 is the highest measured. It is likely that a tourist’s
overall experience/satisfaction is primarily affected by several main attributes, and, in this study,
this could be heritage and green space, which have the highest rating of attribute-level satisfaction
(i.e., architectural buildings with a mean value of 6.27 are ranked the highest, followed by historical
attraction, M = 6.20, and the four green space attributes with mean values ranging from 6.10 to 6.18).
Third, there is a debate in the literature about the use of absolute vs. relative measures of
importance and performance to predict overall satisfaction. Relative importance was thought, in
some studies, to be more valuable to managers than absolute importance [9]. Our study partially
endorses this assertion, albeit in a different manner. That is, we argue that it is the relative differences
between performance and importance, and the relative differences within quadrants of performance
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 13 of 17

and importance, as represented by the IPA grid, that determine overall satisfaction. Attributes in each
IPA quadrant are positioned relative to the mean values of importance and performance and observed
variables in the SEM (Figure 4) represent the differences between performance and importance of
relevant attributes in each quadrant. The modeling of relative values proved to be quite effective in
predicting overall satisfaction and provides a strong empirical support for the importance–performance
analysis which assumes that “overall satisfaction will be influenced less by attribute performance
when the self-stated importance of the attribute is low” [9] (p. 303). The model indicates that attributes
with lower importance in the “low priority” and “potential overkill” have no contribution to overall
satisfaction, while the opposite is true for attributes in the “keep up the good work” quadrant with
higher importance and performance ratings.
Fourth, and lastly, this study used a second-order factor in the SEM, a technique that has rarely
been used in tourism literature. According to some researchers [77,78], a second-order model can
never produce a better model fit than a first-order model. However, our study shows that the opposite
is true, and thus, is in favor of the use of SEM methods that include a second-order structure; this has
also been tested and recommended in another study [10]. It should be noted that alternative models
without the inclusion of second-order constructs have been tried, but with poorer fits. In addition to
the better model fit, inclusion of a second-order factor in SEM has two additional advantages. First,
it avoids the addition of the scores of manifest variables into an aggregate score, as practiced by some
researchers who have treated the aggregated variables as reflective of a higher-order construct [10].
Second, it allows for the inclusion of as many observed variables as possible in the SEM and thus
provides the chance to test the impact of those observed variables, some of which will have to be
excluded from the model otherwise. For instance, if the second-order factor was not used in the SEM
(Figure 4) that tests H1–H4, attributes 7, 8, 13, and 14 would have to be removed in order to achieve a
model with acceptable fit indices.

6. Conclusions
A tourism destination is composed of a set of attributes which may have different meanings to
different people. Tourists “have to choose which of the attractions they wish to visit and which to
skip” [79] (p. 742) due to time/budget constraints and varying preferences for attributes. Therefore,
an urban tourism experience rarely depends on the totality of a city’s attributes, but on one or several
major attributes [75]. To remain competitive in the tourism market, each tourism destination must have
one or several attributes as the core resources and attractors [80] that are distinct and unique from others.
This study shows that green space and architectural buildings are the two such attributes with higher
ratings of importance, performance, and attribute-level satisfaction than other attributes in the city.
Apart from this, this study has important theoretical, methodological, and managerial implications.
Theoretically, this study, for the first time, tested the assumption, using SEM, that performance of
an attribute will not significantly predict overall satisfaction if the attribute importance is relatively
low, while the opposite is true when attribute importance is high. Thus, the validity of IPA was tested
and confirmed. That said, future studies need to factor the relative importance (i.e., importance ratings
minus the average importance value) into the model.
Methodologically, this study introduced the use of a second-order factor into the SEM, a technique
that has rarely been used in tourism literature. It was shown that SEM with the inclusion of a
second-order factor not only performed better than without it, but also allowed for the test of individual
manifest variables which would be otherwise aggregated or removed.
Managerially, the green elements in the city which had higher importance, performance, and
satisfaction ratings, as perceived by tourists, play a vital role in attracting tourists, and thus decision
makers and planners should understand the trade-offs among different land use choices. If green
space is not justified for its existence in terms of economic revenue generated from tourism and other
sources, it may give way to residential or commercial development [81].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 14 of 17

This study is not without limitations. First, there is no guarantee that a tourist who responded to
all attributes has actually experienced each of them. To avoid this, future research may need to add
a column “not applicable” to the Likert-scale measures. Second, biases on responses may exist due
to the use of the convenience sampling method. Since a random sample is not realistic for a street
survey, future research needs to conduct surveys at other sites (e.g., public squares, restaurants/bars,
shopping centers, and hotels) to reduce potential response biases. Finally, several observed variables,
particularly those measuring loyalty were not normally distributed, which may affect the statistical
power of the analysis. However, this non-normality impact is likely to be small given the use of
maximum likelihood estimators which are relatively robust to violations of normality assumptions [82]
and the use of 10,000 bootstraps for the correction of the non-normality data [66]. Having said this,
future studies need to increase sample size to improve the normal distribution of the data.
In conclusion, this study used a novel approach by including attributes in each IPA quadrant as
observed variables in a second-order SEM to test the assumption that attributes with lower importance
ratings will have little influence on overall satisfaction, regardless of their performance. This novel
approach allowed us to take a fresh look at the old debate regarding the use of stated vs. derived
importance methods for the predication of overall satisfaction, and the results suggest that stated
importance may be more useful than previously thought.

Acknowledgments: This study was jointly funded by the U.S. Forest Service National Urban and Community
Forestry Assistance Program as recommended by the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council
[07-DG-11420004-030], the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire Stennis project [1014379],
and the West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (Scientific Article Number 3337).
Author Contributions: Jinyang Deng contributed to the conception and design, data collection, data analysis,
and manuscript preparation. Chad Pierskalla participated in conception and design, data collection, result
interpretation, and manuscript proofreading and editing.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Priorities in sustainable tourism research. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 1–4. [CrossRef]
2. Baker, D.A.; Crompton, J.L. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 785–804.
[CrossRef]
3. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty:
A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [CrossRef]
4. Abooali, G.; Omar, S.I.; Mohamed, B. The importance and performance of a destination’s attribute on senior
tourists’ satisfaction. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 5, 355–368. [CrossRef]
5. Meng, F.; Tepanon, Y.; Uysal, M. Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation: The case of a
nature-based resort. J. Vacat. Mark. 2006, 14, 41–56. [CrossRef]
6. Gartner, W.C. Temporal influence on image change. Ann. Tour. Res. 1986, 13, 635–644. [CrossRef]
7. Limburg, B. City marketing: A multi-attribute approach. Tour. Manag. 1998, 19, 415–417. [CrossRef]
8. Matzler, K.; Sauerwein, E. The factor structure of customer satisfaction: An empirical test of the importance
grid and the penalty reward-contrast analysis. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2002, 13, 314–332. [CrossRef]
9. Taplin, R.H. The value of self-stated attribute importance to overall satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33,
295–304. [CrossRef]
10. Koufteros, X.; Babbar, S.; Kaighobadi, M. A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing
structural equation modeling. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009, 120, 633–652. [CrossRef]
11. Martilla, J.A.; James, J.C. Importance-performance analysis. J. Mark. 1997, 41, 77–79. [CrossRef]
12. Bacon, D.R. A comparison of approaches to importance-performance analysis. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2003, 45,
55–77. [CrossRef]
13. Slack, N. The importance-performance matrix as a determinant of improvement priority. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 1994, 14, 59–76. [CrossRef]
14. Oh, H. Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 617–627. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 15 of 17

15. Sever, I. Importance-performance analysis: A valid management tool? Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 43–53.
[CrossRef]
16. Dwyer, L.; Knezevic Celbar, L.; Edwards, D.; Mihalic, T. Fashioning a destination tourism future: The case of
Slovenia. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 305–316. [CrossRef]
17. Chen, T.; Lee, Y. Kano two-dimensional quality model and important-performance analysis in the student’s
dormitory service quality evaluation in Taiwan. J. Am. Acad. Bus. Camb. 2006, 9, 324–330.
18. Tarrant, A.; Smith, E.K. The use of modified importance-performance framework to examine visitor
satisfaction with attributes of outdoor recreation settings. Manag. Leis. 2002, 7, 69–82. [CrossRef]
19. Tonge, J.; Moore, S.A. Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park hinterlands: A Western Australian
case study. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 768–776. [CrossRef]
20. Tontini, G.; Silveira, A. Identification of satisfaction attributes using competitive analysis of the improvement
gap. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2007, 27, 482–500. [CrossRef]
21. Beldona, S.; Cobanoglu, C. Importance-performance analysis of guest technologies in the lodging industry.
Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 2007, 48, 299–312. [CrossRef]
22. Deng, W.J. Using a revised importance–performance analysis approach- the case of Taiwanese hot springs
tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1274–1284. [CrossRef]
23. Deng, W.J.; Kuo, Y.F.; Chen, W.C. Revised importance-performance analysis: Three-factor theory and
benchmarking. Serv. Ind. J. 2008, 28, 37–51. [CrossRef]
24. Enright, M.J.; Newton, J. Tourism destination competitiveness: A quantitative approach. Tour. Manag. 2004,
25, 777–788. [CrossRef]
25. Joppe, M.; Martin, D.W.; Waalen, J. Toronto’s image as a destination: A comparative importance-satisfaction
analysis by origin of visitor. J. Travel Res. 2001, 39, 252–260. [CrossRef]
26. Lee, C.K.; Lee, G. Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam perceived by Korean and Japanese leisure
travelers: Importance-performance analysis. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 922–931. [CrossRef]
27. Li, S.; Wong, M.C. S.; Luk, S. The importance and performance of key success factors of international joint
venture hotels in China. Chin. Econ. 2006, 39, 83–94. [CrossRef]
28. Deng, J.; McGill, D.; Arbogast, D. Perceptions of challenges facing rural communities: An importance-performance
analysis. Tour. Anal. 2017, 22, 219–236. [CrossRef]
29. Johann, M. The importance-performance analysis: An evaluation of tourist satisfaction with the destination
attributes. Int. J. Econ. Pract. Theor. 2014, 4, 572–578.
30. Matzler, K.; Bailom, F.; Hinterhuber, H.H.; Renzl, B.; Pichler, J. The asymmetric relationship between
attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance–performance
analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 271–277. [CrossRef]
31. Nisco, A.D.; Riviezzo, A.; Napolitano, M.R. An importance-performance analysis of tourist satisfaction at
destination level: Evidence from Campania (Italy). Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 10, 64–75.
32. Pan, F.C. Practical application of importance-performance analysis in determining critical job satisfaction
factors of a tourist hotel. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 84–91.
33. Ziegler, J.; Dearden, P.; Rollins, R. But are tourists satisfied? Importance-performance analysis of the whale
shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox, Mexico. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 692–701. [CrossRef]
34. Dolinsky, A.L.; Caputo, R.K. Adding a competitive dimension on importance–performance analysis:
An application to traditional health care systems. Health Mark. Q. 1991, 8, 61–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Alegre, J.; Garau, J. The factor structure of tourist satisfaction at sun and sand destinations. J. Travel Res.
2011, 50, 78–86. [CrossRef]
36. Alpert, M.I. Identification of determinant attributes: A comparison of methods. J. Mark. Res. 1971, 8, 184–191.
[CrossRef]
37. Chen, K.; Chen, H. Applying importance-performance analysis with simple regression model and priority
indices to assess hotels’ service performance. J. Test. Evaln. 2014, 42, 455–465. [CrossRef]
38. Azzopardi, E.; Nash, R. A critical evaluation of importance-performance analysis. Tour. Manag. 2013, 35,
222–233. [CrossRef]
39. Matzler, K.; Fuchs, M.; Schubert, A.K. Employee satisfaction: Does Kano’s model apply? Total Qual. Manag.
Bus. Excell. 2004, 15, 1179–1198. [CrossRef]
40. Chu, R. Stated-importance versus derived-importance customer satisfaction measurement. J. Serv. Mark.
2002, 16, 285–301. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 16 of 17

41. Chrzan, K.; Malcom, D. How to improve brand tracking research: A frozen pizza case study. Int. J. Mark. Res.
2009, 51, 723–733.
42. Lai, I.K.W.; Hitchcock, M. Importance–performance analysis in tourism: A framework for researchers.
Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 242–267. [CrossRef]
43. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2nd ed.; Irwin McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA,
USA, 2010; ISBN 0765617706.
44. Liljander, V.; Strandvik, T. Different comparison standards as determinants of service quality. J. Consum.
Satisf. Dissatisfaction Complain. Behav. 1993, 6, 118–132.
45. Crompton, J.L.; Love, L.L. The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluating quality of a festival.
J. Travel Res. 1995, 34, 11–24. [CrossRef]
46. Griffin, A.; Hauser, J.R. The voice of the customer. Mark. Sci. 1993, 12, 1–27. [CrossRef]
47. Fick, G.R.; Ritchie, J.R.B. Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. J. Travel Res. 1991, 29,
2–9. [CrossRef]
48. Churchill, G.A.; Surprenant, C. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. J. Mark. Res.
1982, 19, 491–504. [CrossRef]
49. Cronin, J.J.; Taylor, S.A. Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 55–68.
[CrossRef]
50. Ryan, C.; Huyton, J. Balanda tourists and aboriginal people. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 631–647. [CrossRef]
51. Reisinger, Y.; Turner, L.W. The determination of shopping satisfaction of Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii
and the Gold Coast compared. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 167–176. [CrossRef]
52. Tanford, S. Antecedents and outcomes of hospitality loyalty: A meta-analysis. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2016, 57,
122–137. [CrossRef]
53. Baral, N.; Stern, M.J.; Bhattarai, R. Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna Conservation Area,
Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 218–227.
[CrossRef]
54. López-Mosquera, N.; Sánchez, M. Cognitive and affective determinants of satisfaction, willingness to pay,
and loyalty in suburban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 375–384. [CrossRef]
55. Oliver, R.L. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Mark. 1999, 63, 33–44. [CrossRef]
56. Tanford, S.; Jung, S. Festival attributes and perceptions: A meta-analysis of relationships with satisfaction
and loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 209–220. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, H.; Fu, X.; Cai, L.A.; Lu, L. Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tour. Manag. 2014,
40, 213–223. [CrossRef]
58. Som, A.P.M.; Shirazi, S.F.M.; Marzuki, A.; Jusoh, J. A critical analysis of tourist satisfaction and destination
loyalty. J. Glob. Manag. 2011, 2, 178–183.
59. U.S. Census Bureau. Population and Housing Unit Estimates. Available online: http://www.webcitation.
org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html (accessed on
22 February 2018).
60. Visit Savannah. History of Savannah. Available online: http://www.visitsavannah.com/essential-savannah/
history-of-savannah.aspx (accessed on 22 February 2018).
61. Savannah Area Chamber. Tourism Industry. Available online: http://www.savannahchamber.com/
economic-development/tourism (accessed on 22 February 2018).
62. Fowler, F.J. Survey research methods. In Applied Research Methods Series, 2nd ed.; Bickman, L., Rog, D.J., Eds.;
SAGE: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1992; Volume 1, ISBN 9780803950498.
63. Veen, R.V.D.; Song, H. Impact of the perceived image of celebrity endorsers on tourists’ intentions to visit.
J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 211–224. [CrossRef]
64. Schafer, J.L. Multiple imputation: A primer. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 1999, 8, 3–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2005; ISBN 1593850751.
66. Song, Z.; Xing, L.; Chathoth, P.K. The effects of festival impacts on support intentions based on residents’
ratings of festival performance and satisfaction: A new integrative approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23,
316–337. [CrossRef]
67. Comrey, A.; Lee, H. A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ,
USA, 1992; ISBN 0805810625.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 704 17 of 17

68. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 3nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 007047849X.
69. Aron, A.; Aron, E.N. Statistics for Psychology, 5th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2008;
ISBN 0136010571.
70. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 0138132631.
71. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [CrossRef]
72. Wheaton, B.; Muthén, B.; Alwin, D.F.; Summers, G.F. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models.
In Sociological Methodology, 1st ed.; Heise, D.R., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1977; pp. 84–136.
ISBN 978087589286.
73. MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M.W.; Sugawara, H.M. Power analysis and determination of sample size for
covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 130–149. [CrossRef]
74. Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M.R. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.
Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60.
75. Deng, J.; Kathryn, A.; Pierskalla, C.; McNeel, J. Linking urban forests and urban tourism: A case of Savannah,
GA. Tour. Anal. 2010, 15, 167–181. [CrossRef]
76. Pierskalla, C.D.; Deng, J.; Siniscalchi, J.M. Examining the product and process of scenic beauty evaluations
using moment-to-moment data and GIS: The case of Savannah, GA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 19,
212–222. [CrossRef]
77. Marsh, H.W.; Hocevar, D. Application of confirmatory factor analysis of the study of self-concept: First and
higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 97, 562–582. [CrossRef]
78. Anaau, R.C.; Thompson, B. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III. Assessment 2000, 7,
237–246.
79. Shoval, N.; Raveh, A. Categorization of tourist attractions and the modeling of tourist cities: Based on the
co-plot method of multivariate analysis. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 741–750. [CrossRef]
80. Ritchie, J.R.B.; Crouch, G.I. The Competitive Destination, a Sustainable Tourism Perspective, 1st ed.; CABI Publishing:
Cambridge, UK, 2003; ISBN 9781845930103.
81. Majumdar, S.; Deng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pierskalla, C. Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of
tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2001, 10, 275–280.
[CrossRef]
82. Reinartz, W.; Haenlein, M.; Henseler, J. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and
variance-based SEM. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2009, 26, 332–344. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).